Birmingham mayor calls for gun ban

The city of Birmingham, Alabama isn’t exactly Chicago or New York City when it comes to size, but it’s not exactly Lotsee, Oklahoma (population: 6) either.

Because it’s a good-sized city, it tends to have a lot of the problems one would associate with a larger city. That obviously includes crime.

In fact, now the mayor is using that crime rate to demand stricter gun control laws.

Since January 1, Birmingham Police have investigated 90 homicides to date in the city with 83 of those by guns, according to Mayor Randall Woodfin during Tuesday’s city council meeting.

This, as he reports that over 700 firearms have been taken off the streets in that same amount of time.

Woodfin is calling for stricter gun laws to get those weapons off the streets, while asking for more help from the community.

“I wake up every day thinking how can we address this?” Woodfin said.

At Tuesday’s meeting he had two police officers take in examples of the types of guns that they have confiscated to people could see what they look like – he says the most common ones are mini-Draco’s and the AR pistol. Woodfin said there is no use for them on the streets but harm.

No, that’s not true at all. There are plenty of uses for them; legitimate, law-abiding uses. Just because criminals are using them doesn’t mean no one else is.

As for Woodfin’s calls for gun control, they’re going to fall on deaf ears, as they should.

Look, Birmingham may be pretty rough, and the crime statistics say that it is, but just what gun control does Woodfin think will suddenly make this end?

It seems he wants to ban them.

“If you can’t support this ban that’s un-American because the whole idea is public safety,” Woodfin said. “Federal tax dollars, state tax dollars, local tax dollars, the root of what we do is public safety first.”

So, it’s un-American to want to uphold the actual Constitution? Seriously?

As for public safety, I took another look at the text of the Constitution. The term “public safety” appears exactly once, and that’s only in reference to suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus. That’s it. At no other point does it claim any other right can be suspended in the name of public safety, even the Second Amendment rights.

Further, the idea that you can ban these particular weapons and criminals not get their hands on them is absolutely insane.

On one hand, there are already plenty of them running around the state as it is. A ban now would, at best, simply keep law-abiding folks from buying any more of them. It won’t stop criminals from getting them at all. Even if they ran out of guns to steal, they’d just obtain them from out-of-state sources.

Further, these are easy to put together yourself, even without a “ghost gun” kit. How does Woodfin propose preventing that?

Look, Birmingham’s problems are significant, to be sure, and Woodfin isn’t a complete idiot. Yes, he’s calling for gun bans, but he’s also asking for community help. That’s where he should be directing his time and effort because that’s going to accomplish far more than anything else he’s talking about.

In fact, had he not called for the gun ban, I’d be celebrating him for talking common sense. Instead, he wants something he can’t have, then has the cajones to call it “un-American” if you oppose it.

Woman shoots man to death after he attacked her and another woman

PASADENA, Texas — A man was shot and killed after outside of a laboratory business in Pasadena after attacking two women and crashing into several cars, according to police.

The incident began just after midnight Wednesday on South Houston Road outside of Univar Solutions laboratory.

Investigators said a man was standing outside of the business when he started yelling at a woman and hitting the side window of her car. The woman was able to eventually get in her car and drove out of the gated parking lot.

According to investigators, that’s when the man got into a car and drove through the closed electric gate of the parking lot, hitting several cars.

Another woman grabbed her handgun and confronted the man before shooting him twice after he attacked her, police said.

The man later died at the hospital and neither woman was injured.

A New Kind of Threat to 2nd Amendment & Free Speech Rights

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- In the wake of another Supreme Court ruling that strengthens and more clearly defines Second Amendment protections, anti-gun politicians have developed another way to threaten those rights, and rights protected by the First Amendment all in an effort to silence gun owners and penalize them for fighting back.

In California, where such strategies are typically developed and then spread across the map, this plan of attack is already in progress.

A federal court case known as Junior Sports Magazines, Inc. et.al. v. Bonta cuts to the heart of the problem. Several plaintiffs, including gun rights organizations, are challenging changes in state law created by the passage of Assembly Bill 2571, which makes it unlawful for any firearm industry members to advertise, market, or arrange for placement of an advertising or marketing communication concerning any firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors. The plaintiffs are asking for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the law.

The second prong of this anti-gun strategy is legislation enacted to thwart such challenges by financially penalizing anyone, including an attorney or an entire law firm if they seek declaratory or injunctive relief from any firearms-related California state statute or local ordinance or even a rule or regulation by making them liable to pay attorney’s fees and costs of the prevailing party. Simply put, anybody seeking to enjoin a California gun restriction faces the prospect of liability for the state’s attorneys’ fees if the plaintiff does not win on all aspects of the case, even if their case prevails on the merits, settles a claim without a waiver or voluntarily dismisses any portion of the case for any reason.

In essence, California politicians are effectively silencing debate on issues directly affecting rights secured by the Second Amendment by legislating against those who would challenge their laws.

What began as an attack on one constitutional right has now become an attack on another right, yet civil libertarians are silent.

Democrats led by Gov. Gavin Newsom are saying, “You have freedom of speech only if you agree with us.” That is not how the Founders perceived this country, and it is why they included the First Amendment in our Bill of Rights.

If this were about any issue other than guns, the media would be going crazy. Where are the editorials in the New York Times and Washington Post? Why aren’t there reports about this in every newspaper? Are stories being spiked, or is the situation simply being ignored?

One might expect this sort of censorship in Putin’s Russia, but it is here, now in Joe Biden’s America. When anti-rights fanatics take their fight to this level, it’s really an attack on all Americans, not just 100 million gun owners.

Today, they’re coming after gun rights. Tomorrow, perhaps they’ll be coming after a right you cherish or your right to protest, publish or provide an alternate viewpoint.

That’s not the country where our parents and grandparents grew up, and it shouldn’t be the country our children and grandchildren are forced to accept.

Word’s getting out to rational people, even those who appear to know little to nothing about guns.

Why a military-style weapons ban may do little to stop crime

President Joe Biden this week pushed for a ban on military-style weapons as an answer to the nation’s rise in gun violence.

But critics say little evidence supports the notion that such a ban, in force for a decade from 1994 to 2004, would reduce the crime rates gripping most cities in America.

And some jurisdictions are struggling to enforce gun laws already on the books, raising questions about how they would find the resources to enforce even stricter ones.

“The vast majority of gun murder in the United States involves handguns and has for a very long time,” Stephen Gutowski, founder of the gun policy website The Reload, told the Washington Examiner. “An ‘assault weapons’ ban is very unlikely to have a significant impact on overall crime, everyday crime.”

Guns that fall into the “assault weapons” category are indeed used in just a fraction of crimes, data show.

According to an analysis from the National Institutes of Health, “most estimates suggest less than 7%” of the firearms used for “crime in general” were “assault weapons.”

Most of the violent crimes that occurred in 2020 were committed with handguns, FBI data show.

Rifles, on the other hand, were responsible for fewer homicides in 2020 than knives or a perpetrator’s fists and feet. Rifles, which typically fall into the loosely defined “assault weapons” category, were specified as the weapon in less than 3% of homicides in 2020. Handguns were specified as the weapon in 45% of homicides.

Biden floated a renewal of the “assault weapons” ban during a speech Tuesday that the White House billed as his answer to the problem of rising crime rates nationwide. However, when he brought up the need for such a ban, he did so both in the context of street crime and mass shootings.

“We have to act for all those kids gunned down on our streets every single day that never make the news. There’s a mass shooting every single day in this country in the streets of America — every single day,” Biden said during the speech in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.

The FBI’s definition of mass shooting involves “any incident in which at least four people are murdered with a gun,” and although the term typically evokes the image of a headline-grabbing school massacre, mass shootings can include street violence if the victim count reaches that threshold.

Biden appeared to be citing data from the Gun Violence Archive, a shooting tracker used by many news outlets and advocacy groups that defines mass shootings as any incident in which multiple people are shot, even if there is no loss of life. That figure supports Biden’s claim; however, when mass shootings are defined by the criteria historically used by law enforcement, the number of mass shootings this year drops far below an average of one per day.

“You know, we’re living in a country awash with weapons of war, weapons that weren’t designed to hunt, were designed to take on an enemy,” Biden said during the speech. “That’s what they’re designed to do. For God’s sake, what’s the rationale for these weapons outside of a war zone?”

Biden’s efforts to tie street violence to “assault weapons” ignore the reality of how criminals operate, said Amy Swearer, a legal fellow in the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation.

“Most of the time when criminals are committing crimes in public, they want a type of firearm that is concealable, which is why they want handguns,” Swearer told the Washington Examiner.

She pointed to a 2004 study sponsored by the Justice Department that found no meaningful evidence the “assault weapons” ban had lowered gun violence.

“They should have taken it a step further and said, you’re also dealing with a ban, a prospective ban, with aspects of a firearm that aren’t inherently related to solving the problem of crime,” Swearer said.

That’s because pistol grips, barrel shrouds, and the other components of a rifle that typically classify it as an “assault weapon” don’t make the firearm inherently more useful to a committed mass shooter, she said.

The 2004 study noted that military-style weapons “were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2% according to most studies and no more than 8%.”

“Although the ban has been successful in reducing crimes with” such weapons in the decade it stood, the study noted that “any benefits from this reduction are likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of nonbanned semiautomatics with” large-capacity magazines, “which are used in crime much more frequently than” military-style weapons.

“Therefore, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence,” according to the study.

Continue reading “”

Armed Citizen Stops Man Randomly Shooting People in Detroit; 3 Dead 1 Wounded

It took an armed citizen to stop a man that was randomly shooting people in Detroit that spanned over two hours.

This past Sunday, a 19-year-old man started randomly shooting people. He shot and killed three people, including a 28-year-old and a 43-year-old.

The shooter then shot a 4th person, who was an 80-year-old man walking his dog. A neighbor witnessed the incident, grabbed his gun, and fired back at the suspect.

“He saw my weapon, and he went from predator to prey. He had that look of shock,” said the neighbor. via WXYZ

Another neighbor said he saved the 80-year-old man’s life because had he not shot at the suspect, he would have walked up and shot the victim multiple times like he did his other victims.

The suspect was arrested a few hours later and is currently in custody pending charges.

This senseless act of violence was only stopped due to someone else having a gun to stop the threat. And this is why you should always carry and be prepared to use your gun in self-defense. If only someone were there to stop the threat before this coward could take his first victim.

With RINO-Republicans Like Ohio’s Matt Dolan, Who Needs Democrats?

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Ohio GOP lawmaker introduces gun safety bill; includes red flag law, enhanced background checks,” ABC affiliate News 5 Cleveland video reports. “Cleveland-area state Sen. Matt Dolan proposed bill with mental health in mind.”

That this obvious advocacy piece masked as news relies on assumptions right out of the starting gate is evidenced by repeating the term “gun safety” in the headline, the lede, the body of the “report,” and twice in the crusading reporter’s embedded self-publicizing tweet (embedded below). And curiously, since “red flag” laws are also promoted, you’d think the term “due process” would appear at least once in an unbiased report?

You’d think.

Also of note, no real opposing viewpoints are presented. The single gun owner quoted who appears marginally uncomfortable with what he’s being told isn’t totally against the idea; he just isn’t sure what it would actually do. He said that “most gun owners don’t want to cause issues.”

I suppose asking someone from Buckeye Firearms Association what they thought about it would be too much of an investigative reporting stretch. Besides, they’d probably just throw a wrench in the predetermined narrative and give the video editor much more work to futz around with context. And that’s assuming anyone at WEWS even bothered to look for “Ohio gun rights groups” to see what might turn up first on Google.

For his part, that Republican Matt Dolan is following a time-worn gun-grabber script could not be more apparent, especially when he declares, “[The bill] protects the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens while also…”

Grabbers always sound that way when they feign “I support the Second Amendment” right before showing everyone their big “but.” Remembering that it ends in “shall not be infringed,” what other tyrannical usurpations besides disarming citizens who have not been convicted, let alone even charged, does Dolan intend to “protect” us with?

“If someone aged 18 to 21 wants to buy a gun, they would only be able to buy a rifle or shotgun that holds only a single round of ammunition if they buy the gun by themselves,” the report notes. So evidently double-barrel Fudd guns are out.

Why would he invent such a ludicrous Constitutionally and historically unsupportable and offensive restriction?

Continue reading “”

California moved swiftly to limit concealed weapons after Supreme Court ruling. That plan backfired

When the U.S. Supreme Court took a sledgehammer to concealed-carry gun laws that limit firearms in public places, California officials vowed to swiftly respond and enact new restrictions.

But a measure to tighten the state’s rules for concealed weapons failed in the state Capitol early Thursday morning, a shocking outcome for a plan championed by Democratic legislative leaders and Gov. Gavin Newsom.

SB918 by state Sen. Anthony Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge (Los Angeles County), would have added a slew of new regulations and background check requirements for gun owners to obtain permits. It also sought to greatly expand the list of public places where guns cannot be carried, including bars, parks, casinos, sports arenas, libraries, churches and gyms.

Ironically, part of what spelled defeat for the measure was the rush by legislators to enact it quickly in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling in June.

Because Portantino added an emergency clause to the bill — so it would take effect immediately upon Newsom’s signature — it needed a two-thirds majority to pass. The measure fell just two votes short on the last night of legislators’ session, on a 52-23 vote in the state Assembly.

Portantino and Democratic leaders, including state Attorney General Rob Bonta, worked feverishly throughout the night to try to whip the necessary votes. The bill faltered just after midnight.

The Supreme Court struck down a New York law requiring gun owners to show they have “proper cause” to get a permit to carry a handgun outside of their home. In other words, the state could not require applicants to demonstrate that they need a gun for self-defense.

The decision in the landmark case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, was widely interpreted as striking down similarly restrictive laws in California and a half-dozen other states.

The court’s conservative majority held, in an opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, that states can require handgun owners to get a permit to carry in public as long as they use objective requirements to decide whether to issue a permit. Thomas also suggested that the government can still prohibit guns in “sensitive places” like schools and government buildings.

SB918 attempted to take those two openings and adapt California’s law to be as restrictive as possible while complying with the letter of the ruling. Portantino said the state needed to act, in the wake of recent mass shootings across the country, to prevent more violence.

“We need fewer guns on our streets, not more,” he said in a statement earlier this summer. “California will not wait to see the consequences of these trends and will act now to protect the public.”

In California, concealed-weapon licenses are generally available in the state’s most rural counties, those with a population of fewer than 200,000 people. But such licenses have historically been difficult to obtain in metropolitan areas, and cities and counties can create their own restrictions and set fee amounts.

Portantino’s bill was opposed by gun-rights groups, including the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of California, which said the bill would create onerous hurdles for permit applicants and defines “sensitive places” so broadly that it would contradict the court’s narrow intent.

“It is very apparent that this bill is an attempt to pre-empt the expected ruling from the United States Supreme Court,” Gun Owners of California said in a statement. “By your definition the legislature can designate any public place as sensitive.”

Stafford Auto Shop Employee Shots Man In Self Defense After Heated Fight

An altercation in Stafford [Virginia] forced an auto shop employee to shoot a man in self defense, police said.

On August 30, at around 11:45 a.m., an officer, who was driving near Tires and Wheels Unlimited on Warrenton Road, saw a man bleeding from his abdomen coming toward her, according to the Stafford County Sheriff’s Office.

Timothy Greenage, 33, told the officer that an employee of the auto shop had shot him, but there was more to the story, officials said.

Law enforcement’s investigation revealed that Greenage threatened the auto shop over the phone because the business supposedly over-charged Greengage’s niece, authorities said.

Once Greenage arrived at the business, a fight ensued and Greenage pushed an employee to the ground before pulling out his own firearm, police said.

The employee shot Greenage in his abdomen, to protect himself, and luckily, no one was hurt when Greenage fired his gun back, officials said.

Due to witness testimonies that Greenage incited the incident, he was charged with reckless handling of a firearm and assault and battery, after he was treated for his injuries, police reported.

Greenage was held at the Rappahannock Regional Jail on a $1000 secured bond.

Texas Sends Buses of Migrants to Chicago for First Time, Dropped Off at Train Station

Two buses carrying migrants from Texas arrived in Chicago on Wednesday night.

The buses arrived at Chicago’s Union Station at around 7:30 p.m., carrying migrants who crossed the southern border illegally.

An estimated 80-100 people were on the buses, which include 20-30 small children. Many of the migrants said they’re from Venezuela.

Chicago is the latest city where migrants have been bused to from Texas, following New York City and Washington, D.C., all of which have Democrat mayors.

Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said in a statement that he looks forward to seeing Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot welcome the migrants since Chicago is a sanctuary city.

“President Biden’s inaction at our southern border continues putting the lives of Texans—and Americans—at risk and is overwhelming our communities,” Abbott said. “To continue providing much-needed relief to our small, overrun border towns, Chicago will join fellow sanctuary cities Washington, D.C. and New York City as an additional drop-off location. Mayor Lightfoot loves to tout the responsibility of her city to welcome all regardless of legal status, and I look forward to seeing this responsibility in action as these migrants receive resources from a sanctuary city with the capacity to serve them.”

A statement from Abbott’s office said that Chicago is being added as a “drop-off location” for future migrant buses in response to “President Biden’s open border policies overwhelming border communities in Texas.”

A spokesperson from Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s office said in a statement that Abbott is “without any shame or humanity.”

“As a city, we are doing everything we can to ensure these immigrants and their families can receive shelter, food, and most importantly protection. This is not new; Chicago welcome hundreds of migrants every year to our city and provides much-needed assistance,” a spokesperson for Lightfoot’s office said. “Unfortunately, Texas Governor Greg Abbott is without any shame or humanity. But ever since he put these racist practices of expulsion in place, we have been working with our community partners to ready the city to receive these individuals.

New York City Democrat Mayor Eric Adams, upon meeting the migrants on Aug. 7, said that the actions of Abbott are “horrific.”

“This is horrific when you think about what the governor is doing,” Adams said.

After sending the migrants to New York, Abbott said that the area is an “ideal destination for these migrants.”

“In addition to Washington, D.C., New York City is the ideal destination for these migrants, who can receive the abundance of city services and housing that Mayor Eric Adams has boasted about within the sanctuary city,” said Abbott. “I hope he follows through on his promise of welcoming all migrants with open arms so that our overrun and overwhelmed border towns can find relief.”

Abbott began sending migrants to Democrat-run cities in April, with the first migrant-buses being sent to Washington, D.C.

When the first buses arrived in Washington D.C., a spokesperson for Mayor Mayor Muriel Bowser told ABC News that “Our Administration continues to work with NGOs [Non-Government Organizations] who are providing resources to the arriving individuals and families. Our partners were able to triage the first bus, which included individuals hoping to settle outside of the region.”

Bowser requested assistance twice from the National Guard to help with the thousands of migrants that have been arriving in the area. Both requests have been rejected.

She first asked the National Guard for help on Aug. 4, then again on Aug. 11, requesting the deployment of 150 National Guard troops to “help prevent a prolonged humanitarian crisis in our nation’s capital resulting from the daily arrival of migrants.”

Another US Food Processing Plant Catches Fire, Add This to Growing List

Another food processing plant went up in flames last weekend. Add this poultry business in California to the growing list of US food plants that have been knocked offline in the past year due to “accidental fires.”

Los Angeles-based KTLA reported QC Poultry processing plant in Montebello, California, located just east of East Los Angeles and southwest of San Gabriel Valley, caught fire around 1600 local time Sunday. Firefighters responded to the large industrial plant as heavy smoke billowed from the roof.

“As members [firefighters] began to deploy, the fire was upgraded to a third alarm commercial fire. Firefighters initially took a defensive stance and held the fire from spreading to any other nearby structures,” Montebello Fire Department said. The fire was declared “knocked down” by 2000 local time. 

KTLA said there was no damage to other building structures nearby. The fire’s cause is unknown…

While the fire seems insignificant, it’s part of a much larger issue of a spate of mysterious fires taking out America’s food supply chain one by one over the last year.

We tallied a list in June of a couple dozen or more food processing plants that have caught fire (find the list here).

Continue reading “”

Amy Swearer

I read the transcript of Biden’s gun control speech yesterday so that you didn’t have to. Here are the top five most unserious things he said:

(1) “The bullet out of an AR-15 travels five times as rapidly as a bullet shot out of any other gun…and can pierce Kevlar.”

What even…? This is obviously and objectively false. He just flat made it up. Especially if you’re talking about your typical 55 gr. .223/5.56 rounds.

An intern could have fact checked this with a basic google search. There are dozens of readily available charts for this:

chuckhawks.com Improved Rifle Ballistics Table

But also, muzzle velocity is not synonymous with lethality or vague notions of “stopping power.”

(2) “You can’t go out and buy an automatic weapon. You can’t go out and buy a cannon.”

Okay, we’re actually tired of fact-checking this. You can, in fact, own both of these things. Both at the time of ratification and today.

Hundreds of thousands of civilian-owned machine guns are currently in the NFA registry. Heck, you can own a tank if you can afford it.
(3) “For those brave right-wing Americans who say it’s all about keeping America independent and safe, if you want to fight against the country, you need an F-15…need something more than a gun.”

How many F-15s did the Taliban own?

Also, I’m confused…is my AR-15 an ultra-dangerous weapon of war that no civilian should own because it rips bodies apart…or is it a useless hunk of carbon fiber that has zero value in a hypothetical armed defense against a tyrannical gov?

Seriously, though, this view of armed revolution/defense against tyranny underappreciates the role of federalism in that scenario. It’s not “me and my AR.” It’s “tens of thousands of armed Americans and almost certainly a lot of state national guard units [which have F-15s].”

While we’re here, let’s also acknowledge that “your AR-15 is useless because the government could just carpet bomb you into submission” isn’t an argument in favor of gun control. It’s actually an argument for a better armed citizenry and against trusting whoever said that.

Re: Kevlar – literally every rifle round will go through soft body armor. This isn’t unique to an AR-15. There’s a reason body armoring grading exists – if you’re planning on using soft body armor against rifle rounds….don’t. You need the proper grade. That’s the whole point.

(4) “For God sake, what’s the rationale for these weapons outside of a war zone? They inflict severe damage…they rip bodies apart.”
…so then why do we universally exempt law enforcement officers from these bans, including while they’re off duty? Are they waging war against the American people? And how does removing a pistol grip and barrel shroud change the rationale for possession? [It doesn’t].

I mean this sincerely but also gently – if you think a single child in Uvalde would still be alive (or their body less horribly destroyed) if the shooter used a different firearm or a featureless “non-assault” weapon chambered in .223/5.56…you don’t understand guns. At all.

(5) “There are certain gun dealers that are basically… Not gun dealers, they’re wholesalers providing the weapons to anybody who have the money.”

Either he’s suggesting that these gun dealers are breaking the law and selling to felons, etc. – in which case, shut them down and put them in prison – or he’s suggesting that gun sellers are somehow bad for selling guns in full compliance with federal law.

This is how sales of anything work. But yes, gun sellers will sell to anyone who has the money to purchase then gun and who passes a background check….because that buyer has a right to keep and bear arms and his purchase/possession is perfectly legal.

Biden has never showed himself to be a serious person when it comes to gun policy and the Second Amendment [remember “just fire two blasts of your shotgun outside the house if you think there’s an intruder”?] But was hands down his most unserious speech on the issue to-date.

If he wanted to be serious about gun violence, he’d be in Philadelphia talking about rogue prosecutors and straw purchasing. Instead, he’s in Wilkes-Barre telling law-abiding citizens they should give up their ARs because he could just order the Air Force to bomb them.

Biden Is the Semi-Fascist He Is Looking For

JOE BIDEN IS THE FASCIST IN THE WHITE HOUSE

Biden and his administration are framing out an ideological war which puts Democrats in possession of the “soul of the nation,” and paints conservatives as fascists, bigots and any other insult they can come up with. The goal is to try to seize the moral high ground, only they are doing it on behalf of butchers disguised as doctors, groomers disguised as academics, and racists disguised as equity professionals.

When Biden spoke to Democrats last week and proclaimed that conservatives and Trump supporters are semi-fascist, his handlers knew exactly what they were doing. When Biden was asked what he meant with the comment, he said “you know exactly what I mean,” leaving explanations to flow from the podium in the White House briefing room.

“We have seen MAGA republicans take away our rights, make threats of violence, including this weekend,” Karine Jean-Pierre said when asked about Louisiana Senator Lindsey Graham’s caution against prosecuting former President Donald Trump, “and that is what the president was referring to when you all asked me last week about the ‘semi-fascism’ comment.”

Congress is held by Democrats, the White House has a Democrat in the Oval Office. The approval rating for the president and his administration is trash. Yet somehow, they continuously blame the opposition party for their own failures. Democrats could not, in 50 years, pass a bill federally legalizing abortion. In recent years, their efforts to obstruct states from enacting their own voting laws were met with realizations that Delaware, Biden’s home state, as well as bastion of liberal thought New York, each have voting laws more “restrictive” than Georgia and Texas.

Using the term “fascist” is a language game designed to paint the opposition as something they are not, and obfuscate the fact that it has been Democrats in power that have repeatedly and consistently limited the rights of Americans. Charlie Kirk rightfully noted that Joe Biden is a fascist.

Continue reading “”

That’s Black GUNS Matter, just to make it clear.

If Voters Keep Believing Gun Control Lies, It Will Lead to Communism: Black Guns Matter Founder
Conservatives must spread libertarian message among urban voters, Toure says

Maj Toure is a Philadelphian and founder of “Black Guns Matter,” a movement that advocates for protecting the Second Amendment and promoting responsible gun ownership in black and urban communities. He believes that the gun control movement has been and continues to be racist.

He began his gun rights work after seeing people he knew getting gun charges because they purchased a gun but did not know all the rules of usage, storage, or carry. He began helping people legally acquire and responsibly use guns to defend themselves.

Toure said the Second Amendment is the foundation of liberty in the United States but as more restrictions are placed on gun ownership, we get closer to complete government take over.

“But that [U.S.] Constitution, in the Bill of Rights, is there to check government, not to check the people. But if we keep convincing people that, ‘Oh, this is for your protection’ or restricting the people, we’re going to create another communist regime,” Toure said during a recent interview with EpochTV’s American Thought Leaders program on Aug. 20 at the Turning Point USA Conference.

Toure said what has happened in communist countries is what is slowly happening in the United States.

Necessity of Second Amendment

“The reason why the conversation about the Second Amendment and firearms is so important is that all of your other values and beliefs and all of those different things … if you can’t defend them, you don’t have them,” Toure said.

Recently, the mayor of Philadelphia told Toure that only police should carry guns.

“That’s what he said. That means you’re not fit to serve, you don’t know the Constitution, you don’t even know your job description, you’re just winging it,” he said.

Toure said his organization has to counter these types of anti-American narratives.

“And these are the types of things that we have to consistently remind the American people about because there’s a propaganda onslaught to convince the American people to operate and vote in their own disinterest.”

Continue reading “”

‘own goal’

Suspect Accidentally Shot Accomplice in Uber Carjacking Attempt

A would-be carjacker shot his accomplice as they attempted to steal an Uber driver’s car overnight, police said.

The Uber driver told police that he had gone to pick up a rider at 4400 3rd Street SE. The driver said that when he arrived, he was approached by four people, including one who got into the car. One of the others pointed a gun at the driver and told him to get out of the car. Instead, police said, the driver panicked and drove off, and a suspect fired a shot, accidentally hitting his fellow would-be carjacker.

When officers arrived at the scene, they didn’t find anyone, but the driver later flagged down an officer on patrol in the 4700 block of S. Capitol Street.

Police said the driver’s app confirmed the pickup location, and officers found shell casings at the scene and found a gun.

A man later showed up at a hospital with a gunshot wound. Detectives believe he was part of the carjacking attempt, and he’s been placed under arrest.

The Uber driver was not injured.

‘Prevent‘? No one seems to how a device that – supposedly –  tells you where shots were fired, can ‘prevent’ such from occurring. Does the idiot believe it’s something like ‘Pre-Crime™’?

Detroit officials say ShotSpotter could have helped prevent Sunday mass shooting

Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan said Monday that if a controversial gunshot detection system called ShotSpotter had been implemented in the police precinct where four people were shot Sunday, there’s a good chance officers would have stopped the shooter sooner.

Detroit officials alleged that a 19-year-old man with no criminal history shot four people in the 12th precinct unprovoked, killing three of them.

ShotSpotter is active in two Detroit precincts, but some officials have urged using $7 million in federal pandemic relief funding to spread the technology across the city.

“I know from the time I spent with the officers yesterday, they’re going to be haunted for a long time,” Duggan said. “They very likely could have prevented two and probably three tragedies had they had an immediate notice.”

Critics have argued the technology puts more surveillance on communities of color and that it often doesn’t work.

“It is disingenuous for Mayor Duggan to claim that ShotSpotter would aid in helping the police catch the perpetrators of violence when in reality, this technology has and will continue to lead to more police terror on Black, Brown and indigenous community members,” said Branden Snyder, co-executive of the nonprofit Detroit Action.

“Giving the police more incentive to monitor historically impacted communities is inherently violent to the people of Detroit,” Snyder said in an emailed statement.

Duggan said that’s not true.

“There are are an element of defund-the-police groups that intentionally put out false information. ShotSpotter has no surveillance. ShotSpotter has no cameras. All ShotSpotter does is say this is the location of a gunfire with precision so the police can respond immediately,” said Duggan.

During a Monday press conference, Detroit Police Chief James White explained how the city tried to inform people about the shootings.

He said the police focused on notifying residents through social media like Facebook, Twitter, and Next Door, as well as news reports. White also said registered users received a text through the city’s Detroit 365 alerts app. Residents need to register to get the alerts.

City communications officials could not confirm Monday how many residents have signed up for Detroit Alert 365 or how many residents received alerts the day of the shooting.

Police officials said by the time the department began notifying the public, it was mainly to help find the suspect, and there were no longer active shootings.

Bishop Daryl Harris with Ceasefire Detroit said this kind of violence disrupts the entire community. During his Sunday worship service, he said, he informed his congregation of the still-wanted shooter.

“Many of our members were distraught as they ran out of the sanctuary to try to call their loved ones and their families in that area to kind of warn them what was going on. And you could just feel the panic,” he said.

Several hours later, after broadcasting the image of the suspect, a tip came in with the identity of the suspect, police said.

Officers got a search warrant and arrested the man without incident, authorities said. A firearm was found at the scene that matched the bullets found at the scene.

One of the women who was shot has not yet been identified. Police asked people to come forward if they think they might know her.

Well, SloJoe has always been known as a liar, so…

Fact Check: Biden Claims Mass Shootings ‘Tripled’ After ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Ended

CLAIM: During his speech in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, President Joe Biden said mass shootings “tripled” after the 1994-2004 “assault weapons” ban expired.

VERDICT: Mostly False.

Biden said, “Back in 1994, I took on the NRA and passed the ‘assault weapons’ ban. For ten years, mass shootings were down.”

He added, “But in 2004, Republicans let that ban expire, and what happened? Mass shootings tripled.”

There are two things to unpack here: First, his claim that the ban itself was successful while in effect and, second, his claim that mass shootings “tripled” once the ban expired.

On February 19, 2018, Breitbart News looked at a report by the Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ), which found that the “assault weapons” ban could not be credited with any reduction in crime.

The NIJ report was written in 2004 as the ban was about to expire.

The Washington Times quoted University of Pennsylvania professor Christopher Koper, author of the NIJ report, saying, “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

The NIJ report observed, “The ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

So much for the claims of all the great things the ban accomplished. Now consider the claim that mass shootings tripled after the ban expired.

Breitbart News noted that the Washington Post fact-checked the claim about mass shootings tripling when Biden first made it in early June 2022.

The Post reported:

Biden claimed that mass shooting deaths tripled after the law expired. He appears to be relying on a study of mass shooting data from 1981 to 2017, published in 2019 in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery by a team led by Charles DiMaggio, a professor of surgery at New York University’s Langone Medical Center. That group found that an assault weapons ban would have prevented 314 out of 448, or 70 percent, of the mass shooting deaths during the years when the ban was not in effect. But the data used in that study has come under attack by some analysts.

The Post added, “The new mass-shooting database shows that there were 31 mass shootings in the decade before the 1994 law, 31 in the 10 years the law was in force (Sept. 13, 1994 to Sept. 12, 2004) and 47 in the 10 years after it expired. As noted, some of that increase stems from population growth.”

The claim that mass shootings “tripled” after the “assault weapons” ban expired is mostly false. There was a modest increase in such shootings, but the expiration of the ban does not seem to be causal in that rise.

A New Kind of Threat to 2nd Amendment & Free Speech Rights

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- In the wake of another Supreme Court ruling that strengthens and more clearly defines Second Amendment protections, anti-gun politicians have developed another way to threaten those rights, and rights protected by the First Amendment all in an effort to silence gun owners and penalize them for fighting back.

In California, where such strategies are typically developed and then spread across the map, this plan of attack is already in progress.

A federal court case known as Junior Sports Magazines, Inc. et.al. v. Bonta cuts to the heart of the problem. Several plaintiffs, including gun rights organizations, are challenging changes in state law created by the passage of Assembly Bill 2571, which makes it unlawful for any firearm industry members to advertise, market, or arrange for placement of an advertising or marketing communication concerning any firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors. The plaintiffs are asking for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the law.

The second prong of this anti-gun strategy is legislation enacted to thwart such challenges by financially penalizing anyone, including an attorney or an entire law firm if they seek declaratory or injunctive relief from any firearms-related California state statute or local ordinance or even a rule or regulation by making them liable to pay attorney’s fees and costs of the prevailing party. Simply put, anybody seeking to enjoin a California gun restriction faces the prospect of liability for the state’s attorneys’ fees if the plaintiff does not win on all aspects of the case, even if their case prevails on the merits, settles a claim without a waiver or voluntarily dismisses any portion of the case for any reason.

In essence, California politicians are effectively silencing debate on issues directly affecting rights secured by the Second Amendment by legislating against those who would challenge their laws.

What began as an attack on one constitutional right has now become an attack on another right, yet civil libertarians are silent.

Democrats led by Gov. Gavin Newsom are saying, “You have freedom of speech only if you agree with us.” That is not how the Founders perceived this country, and it is why they included the First Amendment in our Bill of Rights.

If this were about any issue other than guns, the media would be going crazy. Where are the editorials in the New York Times and Washington Post? Why aren’t there reports about this in every newspaper? Are stories being spiked, or is the situation simply being ignored?

One might expect this sort of censorship in Putin’s Russia, but it is here, now in Joe Biden’s America. When anti-rights fanatics take their fight to this level, it’s really an attack on all Americans, not just 100 million gun owners.

Today, they’re coming after gun rights. Tomorrow, perhaps they’ll be coming after a right you cherish or your right to protest, publish or provide an alternate viewpoint.

That’s not the country where our parents and grandparents grew up, and it shouldn’t be the country our children and grandchildren are forced to accept.

It’s the ongoing conflict between centrally planned and free markets. Or the zero-sum versus non zero-sum mindset. There exist people who crave and even insist on control. These people believe there MUST be someone, organization, or something in control. They are certain they and the world are a better place if control is exerted over a wide set of peoples action.

Some people believe the world would be a better place if most property and (possibly “or” instead of “and”, but this would be rare when you get down to the details) economic decisions are controlled by some supposedly superior being. This superior being is typically a government controlled by a committee and/or a dictator. These people fall in a spectrum that can generally be considered socialist to communist.

Some people believe the world would be a better place if social position and activity decisions (particularly sexual behaviors) are controlled by some supposedly superior being. This superior being is typically a government controlled or at least guided by a set of religious leaders. These people fall in a spectrum that can generally be considered democratic theists, many monarchists, to theocrats.

In the more general case people can be classified as being on a scale from anarchist to authoritarian. Here I am referring to the somewhat less common definition of anarchist as the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government rather than a state of disorder and chaos.

All social organizations have tradeoff. And under various situations some organizational types are vastly superior to others. For example an anarchist society does not do well against a communist society in search of hosts to satisfy their parasitic requirements. Yet, not too far up the spectrum from anarchist a society with government formed for the protection can economically and technologically, hence militarily defeat a similarly sized society near the authoritarian end of the spectrum.

I find our current political climate annoying because, as Robb indirectly points out above, a frightening number of people are demanding “progress” toward authoritarian government. There is actually a “sweet spot”, by many measures of societal “health”, which lies far closer to the anarchist end of the scale. This is an old, and mostly ignored, observation. History appears to be nearing another catastrophic rhyme.— Joe Huffman